We performed a comparison between KVM and RHEV based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: KVM wins out in this comparison. Users find it very fast and super easy to use and manage. It provides excellent security and scales easily. Many users feel RHEV is lacking in some documentation capabilities and security features and that it can be challenging to scale up when needed.
"The initial setup was simple."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support portal."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"I can control and manage everything. I know everything that's cooking inside. This is the best part for me."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"We find the ease of use of this solution to be invaluable. It is user-friendly and integrates well with other software."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"There is not any proper documentation on the site to reference."
"The solution has a very small lifecycle."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"RHEV can improve by keeping pace with new features and new enhancements. They should not be halted or delayed innovation because over the past quarter the enhancements have not been as fast as they have been previously."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 38 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 31 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "The solution is scalable and affordable, but it lacks features, and it is not easy to manage". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our KVM vs. RHEV report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.